i92on Philosophy of Scie?2ce 



publication of his remarkable treatise entitled "Uni- Kiyce's 

 verse," for which brief introductions had been written "^'"!: 

 by John Dewey, Morris Llewellyn Cook, and myself. ''"'' 

 This contribution of mine involving for me a rare 

 adventure into the philosophy of science, I am minded 

 to repeat it here as part of my mental outlook not 

 yet fully inflicted on my readers. 



All that exists is, in a sense, of one piece, I said — 

 infinite variety embraced within infinite unity. Thus 

 the Universe may be looked on as a majestic Federa- 

 tion of Energies, an infinite machine in which all 

 parts fit and cooperate. 



Oneness, however, does not imply tangible same- "Omnes" 

 ness, though some apostles of Monism have insisted 'Hl^'"' 

 that underlying unity inevitably postulates at least ''same- 

 some measure of objective identity — as of matter "''■^■^" 

 and force, for example — or more concretely, of all 

 the chemical elements, one with another. But to be 

 fundamentally "at one" does not necessitate any 

 such sameness. Matter and force must complement 

 each other in some positive sense, as the key fits the 

 lock. Indeed, there are numberless intimate relations 

 which do not necessarily involve identity of origin, 

 form, and substance. In a harmonious universe 

 (however we may describe it) there might be (and 

 we can know only by observing) a million definitely 

 distinct chemical elements, not interchangeable and 

 not derived from Haeckel's fancied "Protyl," or 

 any other primitive world stuff, whether matter or 

 spirit. As to this and to all other questions of fact, 

 we shall never know the answer until we find it out 

 by looking. Moreover, the conception of the unity 

 of the Universe need not ever reduce it to a single 

 substance, nor even to a single definite purpose. 



C 769 3 



